Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the computed formula, the default preset, the built-in 15% cushion, and the caveat that these are "rough planning math" figures — an honest disclosure of precision limits that annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact paragraph: purpose first, then the preset/override mechanics, then the currency and precision caveat. Every clause carries information — the formula, the default, the cushion percentage — with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, preset behavior, formula, and precision caveat. The remaining gap is the per-line-item semantics for a tool with 11 unlabeled parameters, which leaves some ambiguity about what each cost bucket is meant to include.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description has to carry the meaning. It explains the preset enum, its default, and the monthlyBurn × runwayMonths relationship, and states that amounts are dollars — but the eight individual line items (legal, space, buildout, supplies, equipment, insurance, marketing, softwareSetup) are left to their self-evident names with no per-field semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it estimates a DPC launch budget, spelling out the components (one-time setup costs, runway reserve = monthly burn × runway months, total with a 15% cushion). That is far more concrete than a name restatement. It never differentiates itself from the sibling dpc_break_even, so an agent comparing the two must infer the split from the resource name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how to invoke the tool (start from a "lean"/"office"/"staffed" preset, default "office", override any line item) but not when to reach for it versus siblings like dpc_break_even. Usage is implied by the how-to-start instruction rather than stated as a selection rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.